Monday, October 10, 2022

I HATE Tech!!! Among Other Things, It Cost Me the October 8 Meet the Candidates Event in Person.

 To make a very long story short, I was on the phone off and on, and all day October 8, with T-Mobile.  And things are still not settled correctly.  But I did just now finish watching the event on youtube.

youtube listed this as a 2 1/2 hour event.  The first half hour was meaningless milling around, finally ending in introductions at about 29 minutes.  At that point, candidates gave their introductory comments.

Veronica Amsler has been here for some number of years, was working, then decided to become a stay-at-home mother.  Mario Carrozzi does some unclear job which involves corporate work and teams, and he mentioned curiosity, "ideation" (unclear what that meant), and leadership.  Jonathan Groth is a lawyer and currently a Trustee on the BP Foundation.  Judi Hamelburg mentioned her ambitions.  Veronica Olivera has been here three years and considers herself a "community friend."  That seems to mean she has come to know some people.  Dan Samaria said he got elected in 2018 and has met all of his goals.  He did not specify what they were.

Each candidate was asked in turn what made him or her best suited (from the field) to be a Commissioner.  The six answers to this question were a snooze fest, with non-specific and rambling answers, and did not separate the candidate speaking from anyone else.

Each candidate was then asked what were his or her three most prominent issues regarding the Village (what needed attention most).  Veronica Amsler was unfocused.  Mario Carrozzi, Jonathan Groth, and Veronica Olivera mentioned 6th Avenue.  Some offered more unspecified and unfocused ideas.  No one kept to three areas.  They mentioned drainage and other themes.  Judi Hamelburg mentioned water, too, and getting Village reliance on septic tanks converted to public sewage.  Dan Samaria wants to lower taxes.

Candidates were asked what the Village should do to address climate change.  This is a frankly bizarre question, and it has no meaningful possible answers.  Some candidates mentioned one or another form of diversion of flood water.  Interestingly, in Mario Carrozzi's rambling non-answer, he mentioned the "double-edged sword of the homestead exemption."  This was not relevant to the question at hand, and Mario said he looked forward to being glad in coming decades that his tax increases would be limited, but he did seem to recognize the problem.  Dan Samaria said he is "not the greatest person on the environment," and he later, in response to something else, said he was "not a Code person."  As a side issue, it was baffling what someone who lives in a "Tree City USA" which is a "bird sanctuary," and who is "not a Code person," is doing on the Village Commission, or why such a person would want much of anything to do with the Village, let alone trying to get re-elected.

Regarding what the dynamic between the Village Commission and a Village manager should be, Mario Carrozzi had a clear and correct understanding.  Everyone else rambled.  Judi Hamelburg, for reasons only Judi would know, commented that a millage of 9.5 was not going to get things done.  But Judi later said that almost all Commission votes during the past two years have been unanimous, so it's unclear why she voted for a millage she considers inadequate.

There was irregular and glancing mention of the medians, especially regarding the generally meaningless question of whether or not anything should be done about lawn services that block the streets, and make too much noise.

One question that was startling in an otherwise harmless way came from someone in the audience, and it was whether lighting in the Village should be more or less than it is, or the same as it is.  And the questioner specified a request for "no double-talk."  Jonathan Groth sort of said there should be more lighting, but most of his response was the proscribed double-talk.  Veronica Olivera began her response by recalling the proscription against double-talk, then proceeded to deliver all double-talk.  All other candidates offered nothing but double-talk.  Of interest, I think it was Veronica Amsler who said something about not tolerating four-hour Commission meetings (in response to another question), then gave us an example of how they get that way.  People ramble, and just like to hear themselves talk.  Even when they're asked a very specific question, and asked for one or two word answers (more, less, the same), they can't force themselves to do it.

The final question was about how candidates imagined engaging with residents.  Veronica Amsler produced prattle, then mentioned that Nextdoor would be something to monitor.  Mario Carrozzi mentioned "data," "digital," and Nextdoor.  Jonathan Groth used words like "platform," "venue," and the Village website.  But he also mentioned face time with Village residents.  Judi Hamelburg, who was the only candidate who was not at this event in person, said she expected to interact at Village events, and rely on Nextdoor.  Veronica Olivera mentioned the recreation center, Village events, and thought a suggestion box would be a good way for Village residents who are not Commissioners to communicate with Village residents who are Commissioners.  (Of note, I was away all summer, and I returned very early in the morning, October 2 -- eight days ago.  None of these people who want to interact with their imagined constituents have come to my house in the past week, nor left a flyer.)  Dan Samaria thought the Village e-blast would be a good way to communicate.  He then blamed Village residents for not being willing to share their e-mail addresses.

In closing statements, Dan Samaria said he needs to correct his heretofore failure to respond to Village residents.  (So, apparently, it wouldn't matter if Dan did have residents' e-mail addresses.)  He's been a Commissioner for four years, and it's only now that it occurs to him to correct his failings.  Veronica Olivera said she thought the six candidates were all similar and on the same page.  She did not say what page she thinks that is.  Judi Hamelburg rambled for a while, finally ending sort of where she began: at the start, she recalled how the Village mistreated her, and now, she wants to help others who are treated poorly by the Village.  Jonathan Groth's and Veronica Amsler's closing statements were appreciative and not further enlightening.  Mario Carrozzi noted there were 40 chairs in the room, but 1000 houses, which led him to conclude we need better communication.

The most essential goal is not to re-elect the two incumbents: Samaria and Hamelburg.  You can guess about the others, but those two have provided proven inertia, lack of ideas, and tendency to use their Commission time criticizing other Commissioners.  And as much as several candidates noted the things we can't do, for budgetary reasons, Samaria is still talking about wishing he could get the millage lower.  We live in a unique community where we rely only on ourselves, and there are no commercial pockets to pick.  Anyone who wants to live somewhere where the residents don't have to do the heavy fiscal lifting should move.

Of the others, they are in many respects mostly still pigs in pokes.  Jonathan Groth is the safest bet.  Veronica Amsler and Mario Carrozzi showed what could be interpreted as the next best possibilities.  Veronica Olivera seems to be a very nice person, but she's way too green for this.  And none of those four, except Jonathan Groth, has bothered to do the kind of volunteer work (boards) that would give a better insight into how the Village runs, what are its problems, why we haven't solved them, and how to try another approach.  It was noteworthy that one question was where the candidates expected to get the 20 hours per week someone estimated it would take to function as a Commissioner.  They all had answers.  So, if they can find 20 hours a week, why haven't they, except Jonathan, bothered to find three hours a month?

The whole thing was pretty disappointing.  We've had two very bad patches in the 17 years I've been here.  They were the Jacobs years and the Truppman years.  If the next 2-4 years aren't too bad, it will only be if we get lucky.


9 comments:

  1. I should point out that part of the problem with this group, assuming we're smart enough not to re-elect the incumbents (a tenuous assumption, I know), is that new Commissioners have three jobs. One is to evaluate Village business, as Commissioners would always have to do, to make adaptive decisions. The second is to evaluate the manager. This will be difficult for newcomers with no Village experience, since they will naturally want to take the easier approach of assuming the manager must be a reasonable and knowledgeable one, who is probably doing more or less the right thing, and does not need to be second-guessed. This would be a very wrong approach to take. The third task of new Commissioners is to deal with the juggernaut named Mac Kennedy. Mac's heart is in the right place, and he works extremely hard. But he's heavy-handed and can be relentless, and someone needs to be able to keep him in proper proportion. To give a glaring example, some (three?) of the other current Commissioners, two of whom are running for re-election, either disagree with Mac or don't like him. But as Judi pointed out (I have not checked to see if Judi was right about this), almost all Commission votes are unanimous. The others just give up and give in. Mac is a force to be reckoned with, and most Commissioners can't reckon with him. If, let's say, Jonathan, Veronica Amsler, and Mario get elected, they're going to have to deal with Mac. Dan and Judi have already shown they can't. Which in their cases is a good thing, since they have nothing to offer anyway. But VBP and its government are not the Mac Kennedy Show. We have five Commissioners. We need five voices. At most, we're only going to get four anyway, since Art Gonzalez is just coasting and has no agenda or articulated thoughts. But we need those four. If I'm right about manager Mario Diaz, and he's not a good manager, then someone has to raise this issue, and replace him. Mac Kennedy isn't going to do it. Someone's going to have to do it over Mac's objection. And that's not easy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Correct about Art Gonzalez the biggest waste of time that the villages ever had
    Mario Diaz is just shopping for a better job and using the village as a backdrop Dan Samaria will not be reelected

    ReplyDelete
  3. I’m all for Mac Kennedy be coming our next mayor do you doctor? He’s our only hope for a better future of Biscaynpark

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Anonymous"/Luigi/Louis/Louie/"Hot Dog King," I told you I'm having technical problems. Even my comments are listed as coming from "Anonymous."

      I have asked you many times to stop commenting here. I'm asking you again. You complain about Mac, but you're "all for" his becoming Mayor, and you don't even know how to spell Biscayne Park. Your comments are not of value. They're usually just offensive. Please stop. You were going to run. You made quite a statement about it. But then, you didn't. Too busy with other things? Good, go pay attention to them. Please leave this blog alone. I don't know how to ask you any other way.

      Fred

      Delete
  4. Fred.. there is an old adage, Be careful what you wish for. The last sentence you wrote regarding the bad patches should serve as a warning. For those that remember, in the not so recent past, candidates who were unknown were elected and turned out to be disasters. These candidates, later commissioners and a mayor, were pushed forward to run because someone was "against" another candidate. People thought they would be our saviors but they banded together and put us through these bad patches. We are about to elect 3 commissioners and have a large field of candidates. Most of them are unknown and we do not know what they stand for. Some we know who they are and what they stand for. There is a possibly that 3 people who from the looks of it have not attended nor sat thru a commission meeting, might become commissioners and be in control of our village for the next 2 years. This makes my heart skip a beat. I have met all the candidates. They all seem nice and committed and I have nothing negative to say about them. I wish them good luck. But based on past experiences in the village it gives me pause when choosing who I will vote for. There is a committed group "against" certain people, my warning to them and everyone is.. Be careful what you wish for..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gage,

      The other way you could have said the same thing is "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't."

      As for voting "against" the incumbents, there's a double-edged sword here. On the one hand, they have shown us unwavering lack of agenda, meaninglessness on the Commission, nastiness, (and some people might say of them, too, that if you meet them, they'll impress you as nice people), and a reflex to obstruct. On the other hand, if Judi is right that almost all votes are unanimous, and if we know that Mac does all the heavy lifting on the Commission, then we could say there's not much harm in leaving them there, because Mac will see to it that a constructive agenda happens.

      But on the third hand, as I said, the BP Commission is not about one Commissioner, and one Commissioner's vision and approach. The ideal intention is to have five competent Commissioners, with five visions, and those visions will meet sometimes, and diverge at others. And that will lead to discussion, negotiation, and maybe compromise. As an example, the moderator for the Meet the Candidates event asked a very simple question: should the Village have more lighting, less lighting, or the same as it does. And candidates were specifically asked for "no double-talk." All of them rambled and said nothing but double-talk, except Jonathan sort of included a version of the requested answer in his ramblings. Do you think the moderator asked the wrong people? Do you think he should just have asked Mac?

      I think Mac is great, and he's great for the Village. But he's rambunctious and pushy, that there's a "right" answer, and he always knows what it is, and he needs someone who can check him. The incumbents can't or won't. They've shown us that, very clearly, for two and four years.

      So I think we have no adaptive choice but to take a chance on people I would normally dismiss, for exactly the reason you note. The partial exception is Jonathan, because he's at least involved himself in something for a little while. Imagine if a sitting Commissioner moved away, or died. And the only people who ran to replace him or her were unknowns. What would you advise then? Just keeping a four-person Commission? Or in any normal election cycle, would you always advise re-electing the incumbents, because by definition, they have the most relevant experience, no matter how they functioned as Commissioners.

      Samaria and Hamelburg are problems to the Village. They need to be replaced. At the most superficial level, one of them is suing some configuration of people he can't consistently identify, and the other can't for one minute stop complaining about how she believes she was treated by the Code/Permit/P&Z function decades ago. And on a daily and monthly basis, these two people offer the Village not one adaptive thing.

      Fred

      Delete
    2. Hey Fred..

      Yes that is another way of saying it. My comment was not an endorsement of any candidate nor commentary any existing commissioner. Just an observation that we have been down this road before and to be careful when making your selection.

      Gage

      Delete
    3. Gage,

      I agree that we have been down this road before, and I would like to be able to say the past disasters were more obvious. The choice we have now, and what's potentially risky about it, is validly theoretical and categorical, and as I said, I don't like an option like this. But the alternative is proven dysfunctional, and not just questionable or categorically concerning. The closest I could come was to rule out someone who has lived here only three years and refers to herself as a "community friend." And she was charming and sometimes had reasonable or semi-reasonable things to say during the Meet the Candidates event. She's a perfect example of your point about being able to meet someone about whom you know nothing, and experiencing them as a nice person. And I'll even spot her one more: I'll assume from what I saw and heard that she's not unintelligent. None of that is good enough if we have any other options at all.

      Fred

      Delete
    4. Gage,

      Just to continue this exploration, you and I agree that there's peril in electing Commissioners about whom we know little or nothing. I hope you will also agree that there's peril in electing Commissioners we know to be bad for the Village. That choice is what's at hand now.

      However, I still say that our more recent past disasters did not rest entirely on our having taken a chance on completely unknown candidates. We knew something about Noah Jacobs. We knew he was angry, raging at Commission meetings and waving his cane in a seemingly threatening way, and we knew he had the enthusiastic support of Steve what's-his name. And if we knew little about Jenny Johnson-Sardella, and nothing about Will Tudor and Betsy Wise, we all knew about their sponsor, Tracy Truppman. We had more than enough reason to be extremely wary of these people, and not to vote for them. That's what I mean when I say our recent past disasters were more obvious. We just weren't smart enough and sensible enough to avoid them.

      We just don't know anything about the current non-incumbents, except Jonathan Groth. And the moderator at the Meet the Candidates event did not do a good job, so we didn't learn much we already didn't know.

      I don't think, based on what we know very well now, that we could do worse than re-electing the incumbents, unless we're satisfied to have Mac Kennedy run the Commission and the Village. And if you agree sufficiently with everything Mac thinks and does, you might at some level think that's a good way to manage things. But that's not our system. (It was when Ed Burke was the mayor, and he ran the Village himself, and the other so-called Commissioners just got out of his way. But we elect five Commissioners for a reason. It's not so four of them can be superfluous and meaningless, and the other one can determine everything. We have a Charter.)

      Fred

      Delete